Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Sign in to follow this  
starman

End of Pax Romana

Recommended Posts

I saw on wiki that the Pax Romana is considered to have ended in 180 CE. That's a bit odd, IMO, and contrary to what an old history text said. The end of the period of the Good emperors shouldn't be confused with the end of the pax Romana. Ironically, the reign of Commodus, after 180, was far more stable than that of Marcus Aurelius. I incline toward the view, expressed in a former schoolbook, that the pax Romana ended with the death of Alexander Severus, inasmuch as civil wars and internal insecurity were the exceptions prior to 235-284, and commonplace during that period, and subsequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Pax Romana was a concept invented by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall, rather than a concept the Romans themselves used. It could be said then, that if Gibbon says it ended in 180, then it did. However, the date could be more accurately given as 235, when the military anarchy leading to the end of the Principate began. Others could say it ended with the death of Severus, who IMHO was just as good and efficient an emperor as Hadrian, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Pax Romana was a concept invented by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall, rather than a concept the Romans themselves used. It could be said then, that if Gibbon says it ended in 180, then it did.

 

Is that what he said?

 

However, the date could be more accurately given as 235, when the military anarchy leading to the end of the Principate began. Others could say it ended with the death of Severus, who IMHO was just as good and efficient an emperor as Hadrian, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius etc.

 

 

IMO reasonable dates would be 166 or 170, when the troubles of Marcus's reign intensified, or 193, when the civil wars began; best of all would be 235 or 238. I don't think the death of Severus 211 CE is very good since Alexander Severus's reign was mostly OK, except the last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of an arbitrary concept and therefore has an arbitrary end point. Marcus Aurelius is remembered as the last of the Good Emperors, and so the "Golden Age" of Rome is often said to end with him.

 

But now matter how you slice it, it was over by the Crisis of the Third Century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two denarii worth - It ended with the "Year of the Five Emperors" in 192 AD/945 AUC. That was one bloody year.

 

HoC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of the Pax Romana is rather odd now that I've come to think of it. The Empire was never really all that stable and peaceful even during the Principate. For instance during the period AD 40-70 you had the invasion of Britain, Boudica's revolt, the Jewish rebellion, the Civil War of AD 69, Corbulo's campaigns against Parthians in Armenia, mutiny among the Rhine/Danube Legions, and on and on. Even the golden age of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius had its fair share of violence, including an extremely bloody and destructive Jewish uprising during Hadrian's reign, as well as years of warfare against Germanic tribes during Marcus Aurelius's age. Some provinces tended to be more peaceful than others - Iberia or North Africa for instance - but overall the Empire was almost always at war, although never near as unstable as during the third century or the fifth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, fighting of one kind or other was frequent. Still, with the exception of Marcus Aurelius's reign, and the civil wars of 68-69 and 193-97, and the Jewish uprisings at the end of Trajan's reign (which unlike the revolts of 66-74 and 132-135 affected a wide geographical area), the Empire was quite stable. In other words there were only about seven serious internal disturbances in 200 years, and most were quite localized. Compare that with europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. What strikes me as odd is the choice of 180 for the "end" of the pax Romana, when the fifty odd years after that were generally much more stable. There was for example, no serious fighting at all in Commodus's reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a READ Of UNRV's own take on the Pax Romana, written I believe by Primus pilus......

 

Great article, helped clear up my misconceptions of the term. Considering Pax Romana means a period of Romanization the term makes much more sense, although I was clearly confused beforehand by the 'pax' part. I'd agree with Ursus that this period ended with the Third Century Crisis. Rome did suffer some further problems in the fourth century with invasions by Goths, civil wars, and the religious and political division of the Empire (the banning of Paganism and the Western/Eastern empires). I suppose in someways the Romans attempted to pursue the same policy of Romanization of the barbarians as they had done in the past, but it obviously failed as these tribes demolished the Western Empire in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article, helped clear up my misconceptions of the term. Considering Pax Romana means a period of Romanization the term makes much more sense, although I was clearly confused beforehand by the 'pax' part. I'd agree with Ursus that this period ended with the Third Century Crisis.

 

 

Of course 235 or 238 CE makes the best sense. Even romanization, notably in Britain and Dacia, continued up to then. Unfortunately, the voters in "yahoo answers" chose the answer which said 180, supposedly based on what two Italian experts say. I just can't see real experts choosing that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ParatrooperLirelou

 

Of course 235 or 238 CE makes the best sense. Even romanization, notably in Britain and Dacia, continued up to then. Unfortunately, the voters in "yahoo answers" chose the answer which said 180, supposedly based on what two Italian experts say. I just can't see real experts choosing that year.

Yahoo Answers is not the best place to learn history-there's just too many trolls there and ignorance to use the site as an accurate reference.However there's still cool amateur historians who knows what they're talking about that occasionally post excellent answers.Several of them are my friends on that site. They're cool enough to warrant me to come up and ask questions there despite all the trolling thats going on and the ignorant answers around.

 

If anyone decides to sign up in that site, FYI Para Boxer X is my username!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ParatrooperLirelou

If anyone decides to sign up in that site, FYI Para Boxer X is my username!

 

Haven't seen you there lately. I'm TimD on that site.

My profile.

http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=7p1W7c8raa

 

Recent topic I posted

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjEunys8Y1EbQR3rbOxUB0Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110701210735AACQ2g2

 

TimD, are you the user with the TC Badge in History?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TimD, are you the user with the TC Badge in History?

 

Sure I have it, in history and two other fields. Someone else also has that username; don't remember, offhand, if he is also TC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of you have it right. The pax romana does refer to the period of romanization ending in 180 AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×